The world is a cruel place. You can’t wait on a panda not to tear you into pieces because you don’t tear apart pandas. While talking about pandas, they are animals, capable of feeling fear, pain but no remorse. In the congregation, here, we are people, individuals with the ability to reason like people, driven by reason not by instincts like the panda.
The world is a cruel place. You can’t wait on a panda not to tear you into pieces because you don’t tear apart pandas. While talking about pandas, they are animals, capable of feeling fear, pain but no remorse. In the congregation, here, we are people, individuals with the ability to reason like people, driven by reason not by instincts like the panda.
I have learned that in life, every action that you do should benefit the most number of people, and hurt the least number of individuals. It is hence with great sadness that I notice that some of the animals scheduled for mercy killing are being delivered to a corporation which runs tests on them. What saddens me, even more, is that there are other alternatives to the procedures that are being carried out on the animals that are not inclusive of animals. The animals in the corporation are being burned, starved, hurt, given painful injections out of mere curiosity (Campbell, 2013). Animals have a nervous system, allowing the animals to have the capability to feel pain. Killing 300 animals for the benefit of human beings is entirely justified. However, when there is an alternative to the pain and suffering that the animals are being exposed to, I profoundly condemn people who are thinking about it. Would they like to be used for experimental purposes so that the other human beings can survive?
Animal research brings up a controversial question of whether or not it is ethical to harm animals for the sake of improving human life. One ethical concern is that animal cannot give consent to participate in these experiments and they do not understand the risks or the consequences of the experiment. These controversial issues bring up the ethical theories of animal right s and the question “Do animals have rights? When people participate in research they are informed of the experiment’s methods, gold and possible consequences. This is not possible for animals. Other ethical questions include “If animals have rights, should they be protected?” Legal rights are protected by law. Some argue against animal rights stating that human life is more valuable and has more meaning.
The story given to us by the cooperation is the story of having Siamese twins who share a vital organ, and a decision has to be made, of whether to let them both share the organ for the longest time or chose one to survive and let the other die. The only thing that story lacks is the alternatives to the two options. Organ transplants have existed for a long time and hence the solution would be to let the two children share the organ while looking for a donor. “The animals will die eventually. Where is the harm when we try to develop products to help the human race and quicken the death?” This statement lacks reason behind it. We are in a digital age. Animals have to die, but with dignity (Campbell, 2013).
Most of the cooperation’s tales revolve on the mantra of the end justifying the means. It is true that the means should justify the end. One of my favorite sayings is that there are many ways of killing a rat. It is only natural for ordinary human beings to look for the shortest path, and the responsibility of great people to find the shortest and the best route (Coughlin, 2009).
The end is justified using getting to the end. It’s like a journey, while one person uses a path that is dark, has lesser constraints, and it’s the shortest and sensible direction, another individual may use a road that is slightly longer, with proper lighting and no limitations. The two people will arrive at the venue at the same time, but one will have suffered a lot. The same way that the cooperation is using an uncertain path that involves torture of animals, while at this digital age, simulations do work best to provide the best results in a shorter time.
I would propose the path that makes sure that only a few items are destroyed, and that the most people benefit. Surely, people can say that every situation has to have a compromise and that the human beings take a lead in the priority of survival, and hence only the animals should die to make sure that people survive. That is indeed true, but the priority of the tests that are being conducted should matter too.
Most of the experiments that are taking place are not beneficial to the human well-being. Studies of how an animal will react in some particular circumstances can be done without having to recreate the scene. An example is cutting off a little pet’s legs halfway to see if it will adapt to using the other half to act as the full leg. These experiments are not beneficial to anyone. Animals should only be employed only the final stages of production of an important cure to test the effectiveness and nowhere else. This will make sure that only a few animals get to suffer, and the human race benefits the most.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to take a stand on the matter. I believe that people are more important than the animals. I also believe that we are important because we have the ability to use our brain and use it to assess the pros and cons of every situation. We also have humanity in us. If burning an animal alive for the benefit of satisfying our curiosity, will the killing of one man in the same way not be the next item on the agenda? We should be humane and make sure animals don’t suffer at our expense, and if they do, only a small number is used and used appropriately.
The method used should be painless. At this age, we can observe pain without using Electromagnet scanner to scan the brain. This can be utilized with painkillers to make sure that the animals suffer minimum. Technological advances like simulations should be employed instead of using the helpless animals.
Comments
Post a Comment